Articles - Is the beast awakening? Is the beast dying?

                     Vasily VLADIMIRSKY

            IS THE BEAST AWAKENING?.. IS THE BEAST DYING?..

                  It's always sad when a talented and smart person...
                  catcher instead of good books
                  that is, begins to enlighten humanity regarding
                  regarding the path that he, humanity, follows
                  blowing to go.
                                                Sergey Berezhnoy

   I am not going to discuss printing and composition here.
advantages and disadvantages of "Oberham" (I will only note that fo-
The installation was completed beyond all praise). I would like to touch
some of the more serious problems raised in the dedicated "Si-
Dorcon" room.
   Perhaps, to some, Problem Number One may seem to be trying
Lem "Strannik" - the most fair, the most professional
th, the most objective, and, of course, the most impartial
prize, awarded by the most humble writers from the kindest
late jury. In my opinion, talking about this topic is in vain
spend those precious moments of life that are so lacking
Andrey Stolyarov. Actually, the situation with “The Wanderer” is simpler
nowhere: a certain group of writers united according to the principle
proximity of aesthetic views, based on personal sympathies and an-
types (not only and not so much literary), allocates in differentdegree well-deserved prizes of the most influential and significant
members of their group. As usual. Excessive aplomb when
presenting such a prize is harmful to the health of those presenting, but this,
after all, it's their problem.
   In my opinion, the main and key point of the current “Sidorko-
on" was the final (also landmark and fateful) report
A. M. Stolyarova “Rules of a game without rules (Experience of literary war-
us)". I can identify three most common reactions from the public:
faces to the report, namely: 1) the reaction is abusive and polemical; 2)
thoughtful-analytical reaction: 3) the reaction of a normal person
(about the same as Arbitman’s message that
I.A. Efremov was an English spy - only Arbitman’s report
looks a little more professional and artistic).
   Actually, an excellent polemical article by Alexander Shchegolev
together with the full text of the report delivered by A. M. Stolyarov,
where individual provisions completely cancel each other, pres-
presents me with a comprehensive answer to almost all questions concerning
mentioned in this report. All that remains is to find fault with some
offensive little things and dot all the i's.
   First of all, a few words about the fact that “domestic science fiction is not
can write something like "River World" or "Left Hand
darkness" ("Don't touch the Bear!" - Gevor said to Stolyarov -
kyan). Fortunately, A.M. is here. rightsone hundred percent. Yes, until the end
Le Guin listens to our “leading” science fiction writers seven miles - all through forest.
Including in terms of literary skill. This is an elementary
new self-affirmation by defacing the authority of the one who, with
on the one hand, enjoys significant and well-deserved respect
life, but on the other side is too far away to survive
give oxygen to the prose writer Stolyarov in response. Alas, both Stolyarov and A.G.
Lazarchuk, who said in one of his interviews that, in his deepest opinion,
I am convinced that “we” write much better than all these Heinleins and El-
Lisonov are deeply mistaken. And it’s not even about some “ideas”
or the mythical “high artistic level” present in
speakers, and, of course, completely absent from all opponents.
Ellison's brilliant stories are good in themselves, but they are also good in
America, and in Australia, and even in wild barbaric Russia - but for
in order to read with pleasure the works of our "leading
science fiction writers", one must be born and raised in this country and in
strictly defined historical period. Yes, we prefer to
a quality American author, but not at all because he wrote
says “better”, but because he writes about us. And this is not at all a consequence
yours is not a kind of “high taste”, but just an acquired reflex
- like that unfortunate Pavlov’s dog. Marquez Stolyarov is infuriated
It's good to compete for the same reason. Marquez is stilla "progressive" Latin American writer, and Stolyarov is... A
Here's how to "kick a dead lion" more artistically, we all
decent docks.
   About "rubbish". In vain Andrei Mikhailovich is killed that no one
of the, so to speak, “recognized geniuses” does not write literature, calculated
driven by cheap popularity and devoid of “bright artistic
th opening." For example, “Monks under the Moon” is a novel where even
in the words of the tactful Berezhny, “form crushed content.”
Alas, it is difficult to suppress something that never existed. Because besides the way of life,
into a ten-page detailed retelling of the well-worn story-
jet and attributes, carelessly borrowed from tabloid literature
"horror" scenes (black blanket, iron maiden, baby, etc.),
which the author tries in vain to pass off as a metaphorical perception
tie the hero of existence, and quite elegant, but completely devoid of any
someone's ideological or emotional content "form" in the novel-
I didn't see ANYTHING. How many precious months, I wonder,
did Andrei Mikhailovich spend on these exercises with a text processor?
  (It’s interesting that in an interview with MEGA Stolyarov practically himself
admits the legitimacy of such an attitude towards his books:
  "MEGA": In "Small Apocrypha" the reader can forget the plots that have
on heroes, key details, fantastic moves...
  STOLYAROV: Thank you for your kind words...)
   Another fairly common misconception among our fantasies is
Comrade -that something, with great reverence called the Big
Literature, will highlight and permanently appropriate the best of
created by them. In reality, today the most blessed
and friendly readers for such literature - exclude
really fans. Let me explain. Firstly, the so-called "general reader"
for Pelevin, Stolyarov and others lost due to mediocre
knowledge of the laws of applied (not from the word "butt") psychology and
poor mastery of certain techniques of mastery. Secondly,
refined "high-brow" reader, having run into the fourth-
fifth factual error or stylistic negligence, which
the works of "leading science fiction writers" are stuffed quite generously,
will put this nonsense aside and never touch it again
will fall. Ultimately, their works are designed for a certain
a rather narrow layer of readers, on the one hand - patient and
curious to finish these texts to the end, on the other hand
rona - omnivores enough to swallow "religions, displacing -
shiy magic", "chemical defense platoons" and "ancient Russian mat-
shek", and from the third - those who know and love science fiction in sufficient
least so that racing princesses, "Maricol rings", "codons",
"gravity planes" and other similar surroundings did not cause severe allergies -
ical reactions. In short, this is intended only and exclusively for
fans, and probably not even all of them. Sowhat to spoil relations with
Andrei Mikhailovich has no trace of this reader.
   An example from life.
   Recently I gave the book “Omon Ra” to read to one professor, about
professional philosopher (who, by the way, was named after Pelevin earlier
I haven’t heard of it, although he reads thick magazines regularly) as an example of a
temporary domestic postmodernism. Honestly, I expected
any reaction other than the one that followed. "Well, I read
your book,” said the philosopher. - And he laughed for a long time - before that there
everything is on a physiological level." Please note that this is an opinion
a person without any special prejudices, who knows both Borges and Marquez,
and Camus and Sartre, and postmodernist philosophers subtler and deeper than
biologist Stolyarov, physician Lazarchuk and engineer Pelevin combined.
   These are theses for those who have the desire and strength to argue
with Stolyarov or with his report. However, it has long been proven that in
Anything but the truth is born in disputes. If desired, these
provisions can be developed or challenged - with me, in any case -
I guess there is no such desire. Moreover, approach number two seems
to me much more faithful and progressive. So let's try
analyze and understand what exactly made the respected
Andrei Mikhailovich to pronounce such absurd and unfair
words from such a high platform.
   As someone who was personally present at this report, I can say:
say the following: Stolyarov did not try anythingprove to the audience.
He spoke, prophesied and preached - but he did not convince.
His charismatic speech, which, in my opinion, represents
a mixture of platitudes, harsh phrases and shameless - although in many
homo and fair - praising himself and his comrades, was completely
completely self-sufficient. She left no room for any questions.
dews or additions. I didn’t even argue with the “evil Vershinin”
Stolyarov, and B.N. If Shchegolev tried to convey to the listeners not
only his conclusions, but also how he “reached this life”
", then Stolyarov's report was aimed at one thing - to call
the public as strong as possible, even if negative emotions.
The provocation was a great success. The audience did not pay attention to
the blatant illogicality of the provisions of the report, completely concentrated
falling on a shocking tone. But in vain.
   Oh, what these provisions were! It’s easy to quote Stolyarov and
nice - and look how perfectly they complement and reveal
each other individual phrases of the report, placed in one row! From-
put Freud down and listen to this music: "A bad writer is
different from good, that he will never say to himself: I can’t
write.."-"..The distance between us and mediocre literature
should be subconsciously felt by them (the reader - V.V.)." - "If
the books of such a writer will not receive recognition, which means they are to blame for
this is different. The literary mafia is to blameallegedly captured
power in fiction, specific people who interfere with the writer are to blame,
The fault lies with science fiction itself, which, in the author’s opinion, is moving in the wrong direction.”
- "This is, in essence, about the survival of current Russian fans -
toasts. It became completely clear that to compete with the English-speaking
we are simply not capable of pure fiction." (In this case,
geek is simple to the point of idiocy: Why can’t we compete with
foreigners? Since we, a priori, are writers, if not brilliant ones,
they are super talented, which means they are all mediocrities. Therefore,
readers who love them and tolerate us are people of low taste -
“non-professionals”, in a word. Atta them, guys!)
   Can we name the real, specific purpose of the report on "li-
"terratorial wars"? At least Stolyarov himself does not have this goal
opened Now that the author's only real problem is
this is a publishing problem; for most writers, "democratic"
"skiy games" around a bronze souvenir is by no means the main thing. I, according to
at least, I can’t name a single work of Russian origin.
of the best science fiction books published last year, written worse than
at a good average professional level (see nominations for
"Bronze snail" and "Great Ring") - except for the names, absolutely
odious. At the same time, from the works of the so-called “reality”
stical" direction is unreadable (due to the hopeless ugliness
guests) at least a third. Otherthe thing is that realists write more
and are published more often. As for translated fiction, then with
It’s completely stupid to fight it - firstly, at the current stage it’s
useless, and secondly, competition among translated literature
and so it is already scrubbing the reader’s least interest to the periphery
interesting and significant translations.
   I am far from thinking that in this way Andrei Mikhailovich tried
settle personal scores with one of the writers or chi-
tateley (although this, ultimately, is not excluded). Possibly
also that his report was one of the pre-planned unsuccessful ones
elements of the show - like an entertainer in pajamas and a bow tie. However,
the most plausible version seems to be that this report
was called upon not so much to prove something to those sitting in the hall, but
reassure Andrei Mikhailovich himself, the alarmed, unenthusiastic
public reaction to his latest works in general and to
presentation of "The Wanderer" in particular. It's no secret that of all the books
publishing house "Terra Fantastika", it is the second volume of Stolyarov ra-
fits together worst of all - partly due to the terrible design, partly
due to poor design, but mainly due to specificity
works included in it. This situation is quite natural -
sure, because of all Stolyarov’s things, these are training-experimental
tal ones, in my opinion, are the least harmonious. There are no countries
It's great that this book is being boughtonly those who are interested in Stolyarov
or from a professional point of view - as one of the phenomena of current
general literary process (which is unlikely), or as a unique
different creative personality, still in development, and therefore
entitled to individual eccentricities. Probably subconsciously
Feeling some one-sidedness of their works, Stolyarov and
tried to prove to himself that those who did not understand and were to blame for everything
readers who did not appreciate his genius. It seems that even scolding
American science fiction, Stolyarov was partly aware: although after
His works are in some ways superior to some of your works.
of the above authors, they are significantly inferior to them in other
parameters. And then he decided to prove to the world that the main thing in literature is
rature - exactly what he manages quite masterfully. From here -
confusion and lack of clear arguments in the report.
   I was present in the hall, and, sitting in the front rows, I could personally
watch how painfully you become filled with blood and covered with perspiration
Andrey Mikhailovich reads his report. I'm inclined to think that everything
his speech was nothing more than an attempt to calm the...
lost nerves through self-hypnosis, a sort of public auto-training
homo. In this case, we hardly have the right to argue with Stolyarov or
try to dissuade him. The speaker's only mistake is that
that he brought such an intimate process to public view. By
extremeAt least, I hope, Stolyarov managed to convince himself that
which is what he wanted to convince himself of. I've always envied people who
in all seriousness, categorically confident in the uniqueness of their
talent.
   I would call the third approach to this problem the approach
a sane person. This is exactly the look, slightly detached
ny and skeptical seems to me the most rational. Self-evidently
the fact is clear that there are no real organizational conclusions, as in the blessed
new “breezy” times cannot follow from Stolyarov’s speech - to
fortunately or unfortunately, today demand is dictated by the consumer,
and not by the “competent authorities” who always know better than me,
what should I read, what should I watch, what should I wear and who should I sleep with? More
All this reminds me of is scooping out water with a sieve or pounding
water in a mortar. One can take this interpretation seriously
only one who, like some of Russia's leading science fiction writers,
there is no even rudimentary, army-style unpretentious,
sense of humor and proportion. Normal, sane man looking
to this ugly quarrel, if it had accidentally happened at Sidorkon,
I would ask just one question: why didn’t you guys share the figurines?
- and, by the way, he would be absolutely right.
   Finally, I would like to add a few words about the theory
logical research of Alexander Shchegolev. I like his meta
head start, but I have to say that most fans areaccording to
in their own way they are still polytheists, pagans, and not monotheists.
As one of the initiators of the handshake that Alexander so remembers
hands, I would like to note that the matter here is most likely not in someone’s pre-
claims to the place of God No. 2, and in the attempt of one of the pantheo-deities
to usurp functions deeply alien to him from other gods - not
so, perhaps, significant, but just as necessary and significant
significantly more skilled in their fields than anyone who has exceeded
The nouveau riche has the limit of its capabilities. So, B.N. - fundamentally not
omnipresent, not omniscient and not omnipotent, which is why we love him.
   “No one can grasp the immensity.” Don't forget about this.

                                                       06/28/94